Oklahoma Co. Judge Grants Permission for Pharmacist's Trial to be

You know...I really don't think this is what this man "wanted" to do. I'm sure he hates it that a young man is dead. But, this young man put himself in this position to be hurt or killed by someone what has a gun and isn't afraid to use it!! I don't think Mr. Ersland should be charged with a dang thing!

Shouldn't even be a trial.

he should be given tax free status for life for doing what he did

This case is crazy! I would of done the same thing. I am sure this is a serious crime of passion and defense. He probably wasnt thinkng. I do not think he is going to get justice! PEOPLE need to make a stand against buglery and self defense! The guy robbing the store would of shot him and others if he had a gun so what is the big deal!

Of course if we was left to defend ourselves then these dam judges and law makers wouldnt have a job!

skyking wrote:

Shouldn't even be a trial.

Agreed!

Where do I get in line to help defray his legal costs?

They ought to try that gutless DA for wasting taxpayer money. That pharmacist saved him the trouble of having to prosecute the litle thug that got what he had coming.

Classic injustice! This pharmacist did society a favor. One less thug on the streets victimizing people. The thug was in the process of victimizing him - he knew the risks when he entered the pharmacy with the intentions of robbery! Now, the pharmacist is on trial. That is crazy. I hope he gets a jury with some common sense.

it is the robbers fault that they attempted to rob a pharmacy and lost..the pharmacist didnt ask to be in this situation, it was given to him and this is how he dealt with it..even though he shot them 5 times, they (robbers) shouldnt have been there in the first place.

I know this isn't the popular view point here, but frankly I'm shocked and appalled that everyone seems to think it's okay to "finish off" an intruder once the threat has been neutralized. I FULLY respect and defend Mr. Ersland's right to defend himself using lethal force. However, when you chase two perps out the front door leaving unarmed women alone with an injured robber, fire multiple shots outside the business at fleeing suspects, return and get another gun, then casually fire 5 rounds into an incapacitated man on the floor, it's purely vengeance. The "defense" part of this was the first shot Mr. Ersland fired that sent one perp to the floor and the others fleeing out the front door. If he'd have left well enough alone, he wouldn't be in the situation he finds himself now.

I bet that man was scared to death. People robbing pharmacies are looking for drugs, so they are addicts. Addicts are irrational and he did what he had to do. As far as the overkill is concerned, fear and need for survival played a huge part.

People robbing pharmacys are almost worst than bank robbers, because they pharm. robbers probably will go to any extent to get what they are looking for. I hope this man is innocent and can get on with his life soon.

trial??? he should be given his own
reality show, like "bait car"...
where you get robbers to rob his pharmacy..

bahaha

they should name a street after this guy...
he's a hero

Ryder wrote:

I know this isn't the popular view point here, but frankly I'm shocked and appalled that everyone seems to think it's okay to "finish off" an intruder once the threat has been neutralized. I FULLY respect and defend Mr. Ersland's right to defend himself using lethal force. However, when you chase two perps out the front door leaving unarmed women alone with an injured robber, fire multiple shots outside the business at fleeing suspects, return and get another gun, then casually fire 5 rounds into an incapacitated man on the floor, it's purely vengeance. The "defense" part of this was the first shot Mr. Ersland fired that sent one perp to the floor and the others fleeing out the front door. If he'd have left well enough alone, he wouldn't be in the situation he finds himself now.

u right ..its not right for him to have shot that many times...but...they shouldnt have been robbing him in the 1st place...they asked for it. case closed.

the DA should give him some head!

Ryder wrote:

I know this isn't the popular view point here, but frankly I'm shocked and appalled that everyone seems to think it's okay to "finish off" an intruder once the threat has been neutralized. I FULLY respect and defend Mr. Ersland's right to defend himself using lethal force. However, when you chase two perps out the front door leaving unarmed women alone with an injured robber, fire multiple shots outside the business at fleeing suspects, return and get another gun, then casually fire 5 rounds into an incapacitated man on the floor, it's purely vengeance. The "defense" part of this was the first shot Mr. Ersland fired that sent one perp to the floor and the others fleeing out the front door. If he'd have left well enough alone, he wouldn't be in the situation he finds himself now.

I agree that by robbing him they were putting themselves in the potential situation to die like the thugs that they are. I agree that he should have the right to defend himself and kill the guy in the first potentially fatal shot, even possibly chase the 2nd to make sure he wasn't coming back with a bigger gun or more backup to take out his revenge on the worker. I even agree that he should be allowed to stand over the fallen criminal's body aiming the gun ready to shoot if the guy awakes and makes reasonable effort to get up (potentially attacking him). I do even agree that society is probably far better off with this guy dead and not robbing/hurting/killing others or making drugs to do the same. BUT, I also agree that it is not "self defense" to return and finish the guy off like he did. I think it is a case of 1st vs. 2nd degree murder, considering he wasn't in danger of THAT guy when he fired the final shots. So the question of 1st degree is "how much time of thinking ahead is pre-meditated?(few minutes of reaction time without reasonable threat to safety, prior to the situation causing a death)" At what point do we say someone had enough time to pre-meditate the murder? I think that is the real question of this case.

He better hope that he does not get a trail of his peers who are maybe a little prejudices towards him. After all it does happen